QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online August 23, 2004
Journal of Experimental Biology 207, 3289-3298 (2004)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2004
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01155

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Zhang, S. Articles by Wong, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Zhang, S. Articles by Wong, J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Grouping of visual objects by honeybees

Shaowu Zhang^1,*, Mandyam V. Srinivasan¹, Hong Zhu¹ and Jason Wong²

¹ Centre for Visual Sciences, Research School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
² School of Molecular and Microbial Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

View larger version (32K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Illustration of experiments showing (A,B) the multiple-choice maze apparatus and (C) the four groups of stimuli that were used. See text for details.

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Results of four control tests to check for the possible use of olfactory cues. Bees trained in the category discrimination experiments of Fig. 2 were presented with tests in which the sample as well as the four test stimuli were identical (in this case, they were grey-level versions of F1). The feeder was placed behind one of the test stimuli, as shown by the circular symbol. The bees chose randomly among the four stimuli, indicating that they were not using olfactory cues to make their discriminations in our experiments.

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Results of (A) learning tests and (B,C) Type 1 transfer tests. For each group, the bars show the relative preferences for the four test stimuli when the sample was a star-shaped flower, a circular flower, a plant stem or a landscape, as shown underneath the abscissa. In each panel, N denotes the number of bees that were tested in each experiment. Asterisks denote statistically significant differences from the random choice level of 25% (broken horizontal lines). ***P<0.001; **P<0.01; *P<0.05. Black asterisks refer to levels that are significantly greater than 25%, and red asterisks to levels significantly lower than 25%. The circles denote no significant difference from 25%. Values are means ± S.E.M. of the data. In each case, the bees are able to learn to choose the test stimulus that matches the sample.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Results of Type 2 transfer tests examining the ability of bees, having encountered a sample stimulus from Group 1, to choose a test stimulus of the same category in (A) Group 2, (B) Group 3 and (C) a novel Group 4. In each case, the bees are able to learn to choose the test stimulus that belonged to the same category as the sample. Details as in Fig. 2.

View larger version (30K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Transfer tests examining the ability of bees, having encountered a sample stimulus from Group 3, to choose a test stimulus of the same category in Group 3*, which is composed of grey-level versions of the stimuli in Group 3. Bees are clearly able to perform this task. Details as in Fig. 2.

View larger version (118K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Power spectra of patterns in each of the four groups of stimuli used in the experiments. Spatial frequency ranges from -2.22 cycles cm-1 to +2.22 cycles cm-1 along the u and v axes, where the unit spatial frequency represents a period equal to the diameter of the full image.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

Twitter